How do I make an explanation clear about what is a fact and what is an opinion?

Give each sentence a clear job. First, state the detail as an observation or reported claim. Then state the interpretation as an interpretation, and identify whose view it is. You can check the wording and its labels without independently verifying the underlying claim.

For example, suppose your draft says: “The team ignored the proposal because they rejected its value.” That sentence presents both an action and a motive as settled facts. If you only know that the proposal was not discussed in the meeting, make the limit visible:

“According to the meeting notes, the proposal was not discussed. I interpret its absence from the discussion as a sign that it may not have been a priority, but the notes do not explain why it was omitted.”

Here, the first sentence is an attributed report about what the notes say. The second is the writer’s interpretation, marked as such. The wording does not prove the notes are accurate or establish anyone’s motive.

Prefer specific, checkable descriptions for observations, and explicit signals for judgments. “The message contains three sentences” describes a feature a reader can inspect. “The message is abrupt” evaluates its effect. If the evaluation matters, say whose reaction it represents: “I found the message abrupt,” or “Two reviewers described the message as abrupt.” Attribute a view only when you have a basis for that attribution; don’t invent a speaker or group.

Use interpretation signals such as “I take this to mean,” “this may indicate,” or “one possible explanation is.” These phrases show that the conclusion is not simply another observed detail. Match the strength of the wording to what you can support: “may suggest” leaves room for alternatives, while “proves” makes a much stronger claim. A label can clarify the type of statement, but it cannot make an unsupported statement reliable.

Try this hypothetical draft: “The office moved the deadline to Friday, which was an unfair decision that showed management did not respect staff.” It combines a factual assertion, a judgment, and an inference about motive. If those details have not been verified, preserve that limitation rather than strengthening them.

A clearer version might be:

“[Source or speaker] says the deadline was moved to Friday. I consider that change unfair because [your reason]. The change may make it harder for staff to complete the work on time, but the available information does not establish why the deadline was moved or what management intended.”

The bracketed parts are placeholders to fill only when you have the relevant source and reason. The revision distinguishes the reported claim from your judgment and a possible consequence, and it avoids presenting intent as known. If you cannot name a source, say that the statement is unverified or leave it out rather than writing as though you checked it.

Ask what a careful reader would need to do to assess each part. If a sentence contains an observable detail and a judgment, split it or label the judgment. If it reports someone else’s claim, name the source where appropriate. If it guesses at a reason, mark it as a possibility and state what remains unknown.

For example, instead of “The confusing form caused people to leave,” write: “In this hypothetical account, several people stopped filling out the form. I found its instructions confusing; the information here does not show why those people stopped.” That version keeps the observation, the writer’s reaction, and the limit distinct. Use it as a clarity edit, not as proof that the observation is accurate or that the interpretation is the only possible one.